Microstructure and Texture Development in Al–3%Brass Composite Produced through ARB
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present work, aluminum‐3% brass composite sheets are produced by accumulative roll bonding (ARB) process up to nine passes at ambient temperature. Evolution of rolling texture is studied by texture measurement using X‐ray diffraction method. The results show that ARB process leads to the formation of copper ({112} <111>) and Dillamore ({4 4 11} <11 11 8>) as the major texture components. The intensity of copper and Dillamore components enhances to values as high as 19 times that of random with increasing number of passes to 9. It is observed that the 5th pass is a transition in development of the texture components, after which the intensities undergo a drop. The textures are comparable to ARB process of high purity aluminum, indicating that the addition of 3% brass particles do not cause any significant change in the deformation behavior. Electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) technique is used to examine the microstructure; the results reveal formation of ultrafine grains (UFG), starting in the 3rd pass and covers the entire structure after the 5th pass. The major mechanisms involved are identified as rotation of the sub‐grains, as well as grain boundary migration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".